123. Randi's Prize -- Are Skeptics Deceptive?

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

That's not true. Look up the definition of hoax. It is about being dishonest, not about "revealing" anything.

Perhaps. Let's get away from that word then. In Randi's specific case the project was deception for a specific purpose with an intended reveal.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Perhaps. Let's get away from that word then. In Randi's specific case the project was deception for a specific purpose with an intended reveal.

It doesn't matter how you package it. It was lying.

If someone pretended to talk to the dead to promote the view that survival of consciousness occurs, and that person honestly believed in survival of consciousness and wanted to promote that idea for the greater good of humanity, would that be any less of a fraud? Would you be able to defend such behavior?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

It doesn't matter how you package it. It was lying.

If someone pretended to talk to the dead to promote the view that survival of consciousness occurs, and that person honestly believed in survival of consciousness and wanted to promote that idea for the greater good of humanity, would that be any less of a fraud? Would you be able to defend such behavior?

And, as discussed previously, Randi and his compatriots have demonstrated a pattern of lying. Skeptics give their tacit approval because, like political dirty tricks, these tactics work.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

It doesn't matter how you package it. It was lying.

All lying is not morally equivalent.

If someone pretended to talk to the dead to promote the view that survival of consciousness occurs, and that person honestly believed in survival of consciousness and wanted to promote that idea for the greater good of humanity, would that be any less of a fraud? Would you be able to defend such behavior?

Well, it would be a weird thing to do. Do you mean mean that they would do a fake seance or something, then at the end of it declare it to be trickery but say that the message was to promote that there was real survival of conscious? I'd think it was a pretty ineffective way of getting that message across, but I wouldn't consider it to be fraud, no. If he never revealed it? Yes, that would be fraud.

[Limbo]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Well, I do think a hoax can be an effective way of making a point, but that's besides the point of this conversation.

(incidentally I'm not sure that protecting the public from is a strong focus of JREF: a hoax isn't really a hoax if there is no reveal.)

It was pure Trickster. So from a certain point of view, one could say Randi performed a scientism ritual. He wouldn't think of it that way but when it comes to the Trickster archetype, that kind of ignorance is all the better.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Arouet

All lying is not morally equivalent.



Well, it would be a weird thing to do. Do you mean mean that they would do a fake seance or something, then at the end of it declare it to be trickery but say that the message was to promote that there was real survival of conscious? I'd think it was a pretty ineffective way of getting that message across, but I wouldn't consider it to be fraud, no. If he never revealed it? Yes, that would be fraud.

Fraud is fraud whether or not you get caught. Randi is a fraudulent person, but you keep defending that action like the end justifies the means. It doesn't.

If you were defending a guy in court who had perpetrated a fraud on some little old lady, taken all her money, and then laughed in her face for being such a stupid woman... would that be OK? Would admitting he had taken that money under fraudulent pretences make it no longer a crime? Should he be given a pass by the judge for admitting he was lying to the woman? And would you be quick to trust that individual with your money? What if he claimed he took the money for a good cause?

Is it ever OK to cheat someone for a good cause?

[Nightrain]

It's just plain too easy to criticize the work of others. And, lazy people with ego problems tend, I think, to identify abstracts as easy prey, because some facts have to be left out. Without reading the entire paper, such an ego may assume that they have discovered a major error in logic.

One of the most harmful features of a weak or damaged ego is arrogance; and I have personally witnessed arrogant attitudes among too many instructors and professors, who were overly satisfied with their limited knowledge. To a certain extent I can understand that these people have worked hard and sacrificed much of their lives to obtain a Phd. So, it's little wonder that they would want to enjoy their tenure without some new idea crashing in upon their protected world.

Weak egos tend to coalesce and concrete themselves in organizations like JREF, where they can vent their resentment and conjure ways to make fools of unwary and trusting researchers and seekers, whose only wish is to discover new ideas. They know how to capture the attention of public media, and they have consistently been caught attempting to manipulate the press for the greatest possible effect; for some of them are magicians, and they know how to fool the public. One might say that they know more about lying than others know about telling the truth.

On the other hand, I have no argument with skeptics, who desire only to discern the truth, which, in itself, is a very difficult process. But, they should be at least as careful about what comes out of JREF as they are about what comes from legitimate parapsychological research.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Fraud is fraud whether or not you get caught. Randi is a fraudulent person, but you keep defending that action like the end justifies the means. It doesn't.

Randi didn't "get caught", he announced it. I do wish that he had reimbursed the lab for their expenses though.

If you were defending a guy in court who had perpetrated a fraud on some little old lady, taken all her money, and then laughed in her face for being such a stupid woman... would that be OK? Would admitting he had taken that money under fraudulent pretences make it no longer a crime? Should he be given a pass by the judge for admitting he was lying to the woman? And would you be quick to trust that individual with your money? What if he claimed he took the money for a good cause?

Not the same thing.

Is it ever OK to cheat someone for a good cause?

Yes, sometimes.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Nightrain

But, they should be at least as careful about what comes out of JREF as they are about what comes from legitimate parapsychological research.

This I agree with.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Yes, sometimes.

I guess that explains the difference between me and you. I wouldn't cheat to promote my point of view and I wouldn't support a leader who thought cheating was "sometimes" OK.

Can you imagine a scientist who committed acts of fraud, even if only occasionally to promote a cause he liked, being respected by his peers? Is that sort of thing accepted among lawyers?